OK, I give up. Microsoft may have great management, although I think Ballmer is a bonehead for saying "embrace and demolish" in a public statement. And it delivers fine products at a good price. It could be using its massive techinical and economic resources to develop internet based products that were truly open, not "open" in the Windows World sense. If it chose that path, I'm sure the products Microsoft developed could stand on their own merits, and make plenty of money for Microsoft and its shareholders. And these products would no doubt enhance the internet world also. Microsoft has chosen to follow a different path.
If Microsoft succeeds in its "embrace and demolish" strategy, it may or may not make more money that had it pursued more open alternatives. But if it ends up being broken up or hit with treble damages in an antitrust action, it won't be because the government is punishing it for its superior management. It will be because, under the "system", it has been found to violate the law. I don't such an outcome is particularly likely. I do think that Windows World is technically and economically problematic, and if the world goes that way, it won't be because ActiveX and extended Java is optimal technology. I'm sure others will argue that the dominance of Windows is due to the superior wisdom of the marketplace, and that if ActiveX and "extended" Java succeed in turning the internet into Windows World, it will be for the same reason. I could argue that Gary Kildare shouldn't have went flying, and be as close to the truth.
Feel free to respond with another good/evil Microsoft as the victim line here, Reg; I've already repeated myself too many times here, and you're welcome to the last word.
Cheers, Dan. |
